Dismissed

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023BAIL/7330/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J. rejected the second bail application of Sanjeev Kumar charged with rape. The Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and Apex Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial to be concluded expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:130889

¶2

Court No. - 69

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7330 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey,Neeraj Kumar Srivastava,Pankaj Kumar,Ramanuj Saini Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Sanjeev Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0448 of 2018, under Sections 452, 376-D.A., 506, 120-B, registered at P.S. Bisalapur, District Pilibhit.

¶9

This is the second bail application, the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.12.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 24860 of 2019 Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. by this Court.

¶10

The first information report of the present case was lodged on 02.10.2018 by Devendra Kumar against the applicant, Shivdei and Harpal alleging therein that his daughter having date of birth as 12.07.2004 had gone to fetch water from the hand pump on 26.09.2018, where Shivdei was present from before. She called his daughter and took her to her house and locked the door from outside. In the room, Sanjeev Kumar the present applicant and coaccused Harpal were present from before. They on threatening the victim with a country made pistol committed rape simultaneously on her and told her to come on the next date. When his daughter did not go on next date then on 27.09.2018 at about 11:00 p.m. Sanjeev Kumar came to his house and tried to pull his daughter but she raised shout, on which the first informant woke up and apprehended the accused but he somehow managed to run away but his Angaucha was left there. The said incident was not

¶11

disclosed due to fear of disreputation. Then again Sanjeev Kumar came inside the house and then he came to know of the earlier incident and had lodged the first information report.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the victim was produced before the trial court as PW-3 but in her cross examination she has stated that Sanjeev was living in front of her house and they used to meet each other and there was love relationship between them and Sanjeev wanted to marry her but Shivdei did not want Sanjeev to marry her, on the saying of Shivdei, Sanjeev refused to marry her after which the victim asked Sanjeev to marry her but he did not and then the first information report has been lodged. It is argued that as such the implication of the applicant is false and incorrect. It is argued that applicant is not involved in the case. He further argued that the applicant is in jail since 03.10.2018.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in the first information report and also in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. along with coaccused Harpal and there are allegations against both accused persons of committing rape on the victim. It is argued that even victim while being examined in the trial court has supported the prosecution case. It is argued that later on, in the cross examination, victim gives a different statement. It is argued that even the other two witnesses examined before the trial court, even the first informant has supported the prosecution case. It is argued that there is no reason for false implication of the applicant and as such the prayer for bail of the applicant be rejected.

¶14

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that applicant is named in the first information report and in the statements of victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. and there are allegations of his committing rape on her. In the statement of victim recorded before the trial court as PW-3, in the examination in chief which was conducted on 26.09.2019 and also some cross examination done on 31.10.2019, the victim supported the prosecution case . It was only subsequently on 10.03.2021 in further cross examination, the victim states of a different story. The same cannot at this stage be looked by this court in an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the same is to be appreciated and adjudged by the trial court in the trial. In so far as the examination in chief of the victim is concerned which was recorded in the year 2019 and the part of

¶15

cross examination recorded in the same year, she supported the prosecution case. After about two years in the year 2021, in further cross examination, she gives a different story, the same is within the domain of the trial court to appreciate it. There is no reasonable ground for grant of bail since the trial is under progress. I do not find it a fit case for bail.

¶16

Considering the totality of the case in particular, nature of evidence available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶17

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

¶18

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant prays that appropriate directions be issued for expeditious disposal of the trial.

¶19

It is directed that the trial of the aforesaid case pending before the concerned trial court be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of the principles as has been laid down in the judgement of Apex Court in the cases of Shailendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar: (2002) 1 SCC 655; Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab: (2015) 3 SCC 220, Hussain andAnother Vs. Union of India: (2017) 5 SCC 702 and Rajesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. : Criminal Appeal No. 339340 of 2014 and the order dated 30.09.2022 passed in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 8905/2022 ; Mukesh Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another),subject to any legal impediment.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.7.2023 S.A.

¶21

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Vs State of U.P.

Smt Munni Devi Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Hari Babu Vs State of U.P.

Laxman Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.